How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[Richard]

So what are you basing it on stats? Very poor form if that is all

Achievements (mostly reflected in stats), and also abilities. Marshall, Donald, Imran and Lillee were all "the complete bowler", able to bowl pretty much anything you could wish for in a seamer (off-cutters, leg-cutters, inswing, outswing, use of the crease, Yorkers, short deliveries, etc). Ambrose and McGrath weren't (or, at least, it wasn't quite so obvious to the casual eye that they were) but their relentlessness was suffocating, so even if neither used swing (for instance) all that often, it was only because they didn't need to.

Such bowlers suffer in comparison to Lillee only in other respects, those not related to actual bowling performances and skills.

 

[Perm]

Eh?

I can't make sense of all of that I'm afraid.

It's pretty simple. Kaza was pointing out what some of the commentators, fans and colleagues think. In that regard, it doesn't matter what you think, because he was just giving the opinion of some people who regard Lillee as the greatest, even though you don't.

 

[Richard]

Then started a debate that has, it would seem, even lesser merit. Between Lillee and Imran as a bowler. Most cricket writers and great former players have rated Lillee amongst the very greatest to grace the game and few of them have talked similarly of Imran - a great bowler at his peak nevertheless. One need not go into those names again. And yet Imran came into it (or his supporters rather) with the same fervour and the argument of the 'failure in the sub-continent' has been the major weapon. Its funny the straws we clutch to in order to give the impression that we are swimming strongly. And you can always find straws in such debates but different straws for different arguments mind you. Something akin to shifting goal posts did you say ? Well not exactly but you get the picture.

The thing is, though, the success-in-subcontinent issue may be the most commonly raised issue, but I personally see no reason to suggest Imran and Lillee were on different planes as bowlers. As I pretty much say in the above post, both of them had just about everything going for them that you could wish for in a seam-bowler. I don't see why Lillee is streets ahead of Imran, at all.

 

[Matt79]

I know I'm not objecting to people not considering Lillee to be the greatest ever. I don't consider him to be the greatest ever - I have him at #2 after Marshall. I'm objecting to terms like 'green-top bully' and 'horribly overrated' which have been thrown around in this thread, as well as to the general trend, of which this thread has contained some prime examples of picking apart a player you haven't seen play based on a couple of isolated stats.

If someone wants to think Imran was a better bowler, that's fine, I don't care. I disagree, but can see why you'd think that and can live and let live. All I'd ask is that people extend the same courtesy back the other way. If someone wants to think Saj Mahmoud is a better bowler than Lillee, then I might have a problem!

 

[Richard]

I know I'm not objecting to people not considering Lillee to be the greatest ever. I don't consider him to be the greatest ever - I have him at #2 after Marshall. I'm objecting to terms like 'green-top bully' and 'horribly overrated' which have been thrown around in this thread

Yes, and that is fair enough. The only person who's ever said such things has been BhupinderSingh and, to his credit, he's rowed back a bit and hasn't hesitated to acknowledge that Lillee was indeed one of the best seamers of all-time. He was certainly no green-top bully, but I'd argue that the fact that more people than not seem to think he's the greatest there's ever been, beyond doubt, means he is, rather horribly, overrated. The trouble is, one can be horribly overrated and still be one of the best 5, or at the very worst the best 10, seamers of all time, ahem, in modern times.

 

[Dasa]

I know I'm not objecting to people not considering Lillee to be the greatest ever. I don't consider him to be the greatest ever - I have him at #2 after Marshall. I'm objecting to terms like 'green-top bully' and 'horribly overrated' which have been thrown around in this thread, as well as to the general trend, of which this thread has contained some prime examples of picking apart a player you haven't seen play based on a couple of isolated stats.

Yeah, but that's pretty much been only one poster and even he has toned it down. I get a little heated because of posts like this which aren't what most people are saying and are really just misrepresenting what we want to say. It wouldn't be an issue if the response wasn't always the same, that we're trying to make out that Lillee was crap.

 

[Richard]

The Lillee persona; apparently Lillee hoodwinked a number of judges including Benaud, Richards, Marshall, Hadlee etc. it seems his attitude and moustache somehow hypnotized these great players and commentators. Following this theory we should also discount all of Lillee’s LBWs and caught behind wickets as he obviously would have conned the umpires as they were much closer and therefore more susceptible to the Lillee powers.

Haha, just read this again now, TBF on Sean I actually laughed at that, even though it is misreprisenting what I've said.

 

[Sanz]

When on earth did I say that Lillee wasn't a great bowler?

I hope you dont blame it on your poor English skills again :-

Lillee was hardly a great bowler.He was a green top bully & his miserable record in subcontinent proves.There is no b doubt that he was a good bowler but doesn't deserve to be in Marshall/McGrath/Imran/Hadlee/Akram/Ambrose category

Richard Hadlee was twice the bowler Dennis Lillee was.

Your team is going to lose miserably.Even Dennis Lillee doesn't deserve to be a part of an alltime attack.


Actually there are many such gems by you on Dennis Lillee.

 

[Sanz]

Well there you go, no-one is saying Lillee wasn't a great bowler. However, it seems any criticism of Lillee is automatically dismissed by some here, even when it's valid criticism and the criticism isn't made in order to call Lillee a poor bowler. Saying Lillee wasn't the greatest is no ****ing crime, it's akin to saying Viv Richards wasn't the greatest batsman since Bradman - some will disagree, but ffs this constant misrepresentation of any argument that doesn't fit the accepted view is tiresome and juvenile.

Dasa, Take a look at the poll and please Dont be so sure about Bhupinder Singh.

 

[Richard]

I hope you dont blame it on your poor English skills again :-

Lillee was hardly a great bowler.He was a green top bully & his miserable record in subcontinent proves.There is no b doubt that he was a good bowler but doesn't deserve to be in Marshall/McGrath/Imran/Hadlee/Akram/Ambrose category

Richard Hadlee was twice the bowler Dennis Lillee was.

Your team is going to lose miserably.Even Dennis Lillee doesn't deserve to be a part of an alltime attack.


Actually there are many such gems by you on Dennis Lillee.

And of course he hasn't rowed back on that since, has he?

 

[Perm]

And of course he hasn't rowed back on that since, has he?

No need for the rolleyes, all it's going to do is start another flame war between you and Sanz.

 

[archie mac]

Ffs archie, it's pretty damn poor of you to continue painting people in that light. People (perhaps with the exception of BhupinderSingh) aren't saying Lillee wasn't great. People are saying that he isn't the indisputable greatest. Why do you continue to misrepresent the argument? It has no intellectual merit, and frankly, it reflects poorly on you that you aren't able to argue the points actually made and have to come up with a straw man to bring down.

Let me say it again I do not mind people not thinking Lillee is the greatest bowler, which I have said in this very thread on more than one occasion.

What I do object to is people using a 3 Test series in Pakistan, the Lillee persona or his WSC to somehow support the theory that he for those reasons can not be considerd the greatest bowler: They are silly arguments and I will not argue those points because they are not worthy of debate

Again I am not saying people can not consider others as the greatest bowler, but get some half decent arguments instead of those points I have mentioned; here let me help you with some decent cricketing reasons not to consider Lillee.

1. he could not bowl a decent yorker
2. he had trouble dismissing lower order batsman
3. he never seemed to be able to change his bowling style to that of containment (in Test cricket), always trying to claim wickets, even if the batsman was on top.

It is pretty bad when I have to start arguing with myself

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, but that's pretty much been only one poster and even he has toned it down. I get a little heated because of posts like this which aren't what most people are saying and are really just misrepresenting what we want to say. It wouldn't be an issue if the response wasn't always the same, that we're trying to make out that Lillee was crap.

To say it is only one is simply not true, go back and read some of the earlier posts; and the only reason it has been toned down is that people who watched Lillee refuse to let these ridiculous arguments go unchallenged, and if they keep being used I will keep shooting them down and highlighting how silly they are

 

[archie mac]

My thoughts pretty much word-for-word, and I know ss thinks the exact same too.

I think it was clear that I was mucking around

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I hope you dont blame it on your poor English skills again :-

Lillee was hardly a great bowler.He was a green top bully & his miserable record in subcontinent proves.There is no b doubt that he was a good bowler but doesn't deserve to be in Marshall/McGrath/Imran/Hadlee/Akram/Ambrose category

Richard Hadlee was twice the bowler Dennis Lillee was.

Your team is going to lose miserably.Even Dennis Lillee doesn't deserve to be a part of an alltime attack.


Actually there are many such gems by you on Dennis Lillee.

1.This post is very old one(I posted it about an year ago probably) & I've openly admitted that I've changed my views about Lillee since then(many of the forum members know that).Bring something from my recent posts where I've said that Lillee was not a great bowler.
2.This post was an exaggeration in reply to bond21 who said BS i.e And no...Hadlee was good but hes not top tier.Lets suppose even if I consider Hadlee that much better than Lillee,it still doesn't show that I don't consider him a great bowler.
3.This post doesn't show that I don't consider Lillee a great bowler.Every great bowler is not as good as some others to deserve a place in an alltime XI.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Dasa, Take a look at the poll and please Dont be so sure about Bhupinder Singh.

And just always be sure about a person who first says "any bowler averaging in 30s is rubbish" but then changes his statement after a few hours when he comes to know that some of his favourite players would also fall into 'rubbish' category.

 

[SJS]

The issues are getting muddied. Let me try to clarify.

Lillee was a great bowler. There are very few who will not concede that. Those that dont will be a small minority think he was a great bowler will not change their opinion by any amount of discussion. So debating with them is pointless.

Lillee was the greatest of all time : He has as good a claim to that as any other bowler t that title unless we include Barnes in the equation. However, there is no way this can be claimed with certainity about any bowler (or batsman for that matter had we not been badgered by Bradman's 99.9 ). There are many who claim he was but there are many who claim some other boler was. I am talking of people whose opinions count for something, at least more than all of us here. So we can at best say, its a matter of personal opinion, no more no less. Again debating firther - pointless.

He was one amongst top 10 of all time Very few will debate that too. Honestly, I doubt if any cricket writer or great player of the past was asked to make a list of ten top fast bowlers of all time, would leave him out. The very vast majority would not. So this is also acceptable. Some may still disagree but that cant be avoided I suppose.

So ...

• its okay to say he was a great bowler and almost everyone will agree
• its okay to say he is one of the greatest and most would agree
• you can argue that he was the greatest ever but it would be difficult to find objective criteria to support the argument
• its also okay to say he was not the greatest because of what is said above
• its debatable to say he was not even one of the 10 greatest of all time but some may hold that view mainly because they would be looking more favourably at those closer to their own time

BUT..

to say that Lillee was good, bad, indiffernt or whatever because of one tour of Pakistan is laughable and can be smashed to bits by all kinds of arguments if one cares to

 

[Sanz]

And just always be sure about a person who first says "any bowler averaging in 30s is rubbish" but then changes his statement after a few hours when he comes to know that some of his favourite players would also fall into 'rubbish' category.

Just so you know, SObers, Flintof and Sarfira Nawaz aren't my fav. bowlers.

And no you have not changed your views on Lillee, take a look at the poll. You picked him as a merely GOOD bowler, which is incorrect. Lillee was a great bowler and an excellent one.

 

[Ikki]

Haha, nice video with little stories from Sir Gary about Lillee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqtMvzOPj8s

Suffer in ya jocks!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Dennis Lillee is the greatest fast bowler of all time. He obviously wasn't outstandingly head and shoulders above everyone else in the way Bradman is often considered to be as a batsman. There are a number of others who could be considered greater than Lillee and in a vote amongst cricket experts around the world I doubt that Lillee would rate above Marshall or McGrath and it would be a close run thing with a few others. To rate him mediocre is rather foolish even if you don't consider him to be in the top 10 of all time. He was without argument (or at least without rational argument) a great bowler.........how great is just a matter of opinion.